The Ship Model Forum

One reason you see so many former Soviet naval officers crewing merchant ships is that they didn't have too many options after the Soviet Union collapsed. The bulk of their fleet was laid up to rot and much like the U.S. cutbacks caused the best and brightest to leave first the former Soviet republics had a glut of professional, highly trained officers with no ships to command.

Filipinos is the correct spelling. No "ph" in the word.

The ratings are mostly Phillipino, Russians are mainly ex-Navy officers, serving as officers in the Merchant fleet nowadays. I know quite a few companies that have Russian officers, although they shouldn't be mistaken with Ukraine officers, which are also very common (and growing in numbers).
I wouldn't rather think about the slipping in of agents, I would be more worried about their training. These officers are at sea all the time, if Russia builds up and has a sudden need for officers, they're right there and pretty well trained... All you have to do is teach them about weapons and battle tactics and you have a brand new crew ready.


And I'm not surprised about these academics either. Russia is losing a lot of its brains. Wages and opportunities are small in Russia, yet abroad, most of them can find a good job and payment (can't blame them for that). That is also why their officers and captains are sailing abroad, the wages are very high there, while in the Navy they don't even have money for heating or a house.

Russia is importing all kinds of stuff, plenty of containers in St-Petersburg. There was even a plan to get rid of our excess ale by sending it to Russia by ship, so they could use it to fertilise their crop fields. Don't know what the result was, last thing I heard was that some of the papers weren't correctly filled out and that the ships were stopped at sea near the border, that was two years ago though.

[quote="richter111"]here is something to chew on.

Part of my job brings me into contact with shipping from around the world. I have noticed that 90% of the crews manning the vessels that come into the great lakes are of Russian and Ukrainian descent.

Ok, so here are my thoughts on this. In the event of a major build up the Russian and Ukrainian crews are a built in source of information on the shipping and waterways of the United States.

So, Russia builds up it's navy, goes back to a hybrid Communism, and they start slipping agents into the US through shipping ports.

Well, what does the group think??

Ric[/quote]
What is the cargo? Russia still importing grain? Something we've not been talking about lately.

We might think about the leverage our agricultural crops give us the next time Putin flexes his natural gas muscles. If the West acts in concert, perhaps we can tame the monster.

Anecdotally much of the world's merchant fleet seems to be crewed by Phillipinos. Regardless of where a major marine accident happens, the new report always seem to say that a major proportion of crew both lost and saves are Phillipino.

I think The USSR rewarded mothers of sons extravagantly. One mother was even awarded the Order of Lenin for her patriotic delivery of so many sons in the 1950s.

Between Stalin and Hitler, The USSR lost a generation of males. With the program to bring more males into the population between 1945 and 1970, there would be a lot of intelligent men with basic military skills available to crew your merchant fleet at a very low wage today.

You ought to be more worried. I went to a conference about the computer I use. It is common for military and scientific research as well as banking. At least half the attendees were ex-academics from Russia.

here is something to chew on.

Part of my job brings me into contact with shipping from around the world. I have noticed that 90% of the crews manning the vessels that come into the great lakes are of Russian and Ukrainian descent.

Ok, so here are my thoughts on this. In the event of a major build up the Russian and Ukrainian crews are a built in source of information on the shipping and waterways of the United States.

So, Russia builds up it's navy, goes back to a hybrid Communism, and they start slipping agents into the US through shipping ports.

Well, what does the group think??

Ric

[quote="Neptune"]Sorry to say guys, but you're wrong. They've actually planned, and if I'm not mistaken already building, a huge drydock (I think it was 400m long x 100+m beam) at Severodvinsk for the construction of "large ships, including aircraft carriers".

Putin is no dumb person, nor are his advisors. The reason for his investments in the Navy is US. US is attacking countries that have a lot of resources (eg Iraq)and uses its naval forces to do so (they'd be stupid not to do so of course). Currently Russia is opening its biggest resource fields in the ocean, if it can't defend them, then it's likely (in their opinion), that US will try to take it from them in the future. That is what Putin wants to defend Russia from, whether it is a "correct" thought or not.[/quote]


I do agree with your thoughts, if indeed the Russians are building the drydock necessary for Carrier construction. Yes, Russia is developing it resources that are located under the seas around Russia. Including the Baltic pipeline project. You are correct that a large naval presence would be necessary to defend and deter any attempt to cut into Russia's sea based energy projects. In fact, I read in the Swedish newspaper "Svenska Dagbladet" just a few weeks ago a long article about the Baltic pipeline and the Russian Naval presence that will come with guarding the pipeline. In short, some Swedes see that coming naval presence close off the shores of Sweden as a threat equal to the cold war threats. So this energy resource struggle may indeed be a key to Russian naval expansion. Rather than the world becoming one new world order corporate utopia, I see a long dark struggle ahead in the near future. Eneregy resource wars will become common. China is only beginning to step into this struggle. The US made the first move by taking Iraq's oil fields and now has the say as to what happens to these reserves. Study the new Iraqi oil law and that becomes clear.
Viewed from a resource wars point of view, as you mentioned, I agree that Russia may be beginning a large naval expansion.


Bob B.

Sorry to say guys, but you're wrong. They've actually planned, and if I'm not mistaken already building, a huge drydock (I think it was 400m long x 100+m beam) at Severodvinsk for the construction of "large ships, including aircraft carriers".

Putin is no dumb person, nor are his advisors. The reason for his investments in the Navy is US. US is attacking countries that have a lot of resources (eg Iraq)and uses its naval forces to do so (they'd be stupid not to do so of course). Currently Russia is opening its biggest resource fields in the ocean, if it can't defend them, then it's likely (in their opinion), that US will try to take it from them in the future. That is what Putin wants to defend Russia from, whether it is a "correct" thought or not.

The question at hand was, is Putin for real in this talk of Russian Carrier Battle Groups. The USN can only view the building of such ships as a direct threat to American naval supremacy. Much like Britain viewed the German Battleship building in the decade before WWI. I'de say that if Russia goes ahead with these plans, we will be quickly moved into another Cold War scenario. It seems Putin did not read the script for the New World Order. He is supposed to forget national interests and adopt Corporate interests in their place. Globalization of finance, trade and manufacturing has no room for the nation states to start this kind of nationalism all over again. It was said that the end of the cold war brought about the end of history. That was some damn fool statement if you ask me. History is not on the ropes yet. Witness the resource wars just getting started. Iraq being the biggest at this point.
I admit I'm surprized that Russia would get so agressive in Naval matters at this point. So I kinda doubt Putin is serious about these Carrier Battle Groups. Russian military needs alot of other thing more than Carriers. Russia is a land empire and needs a Navy only for defense, not sea control. The US is like Britain, we need sea control world wide to further our national interests.
There, I got kind of political, which I try and avoid at all costs on a Warship site :censored_2: But I guess part of naval issues is always political.

Bob B.

The point I was trying to make was the Carrier is the center of US naval strategy but only a defensive, support component in the Red fleet.

1. Soviet Union invested massively in carriers killing tactics and weapons not because they thought carriers were useless, but because carriers were useful.

2. Soviet Union did have a more traditional view of "balanced fleet" than the USN, which means they believe that not only should they have a "balanced" mix of every type of ship in their fleets, but as far as possible, each ship must have credible capability to engage in every type of action. This type of thinking permeates soviet military thinking outside the Navy as well. This is notably different approach than USN, which for a while thought carrier would so monopolize naval offensive power than give any offensive power to other surface ships would be a waste of time. So even if Soviet Union had as many carriers as the USN, you can bet they would still invest much more heavily in long range heavy anti-surface capability in the surface ships than USN.

3. The fact that Soviet Union didn't build carriers earlier was due in part to lack of continuity in the assessment of defense needs by civilian political masters, not because naval doctrine as formulated by professional officer corp. The civilian leadership, at least after Khrushchev, did think carriers desirable. But being a land based power whose true focus is EuroAsian continent, they just had other higher and more immediate priorities and was merely putting off carrier construction.

[quote="bengtsson"]
For my part, I find it a bit hard to believe that a nation that has specialized in the weapons and tactics for Carrier Killing, would themsleves adopt the Carrier Battle Group as a part of their overall approach to sea power. Or maybe they doubt their ability to kill Carriers and believe they are still the Queens of the sea. [/quote]
There where a huge number of articles about this in the '80s. The fact is (was) that no one has invested more in the tactics needed to sink a carrier than the USSR. At the very end of their tenure, they were beginning their third generation of aviation ships, and the first generation that might begin to rival US carriers in size.

They had very different planes, though. The USSR invested in first class fighter aircraft, but a barely serviceable bomber. They wrote in their journals that they planned to use their carriers as defensive centers for the offensive missile ships.

I think if any of these reported Russian naval building plans are for real, the USNI Proceedings would have an article or information in one of the regular sections on the issue. For some reason my issues haven't been coming lately, I'll have to get on to them about it. The Proceedings usually keeps well up to date on Foreign Naval building plans and discussions.
For my part, I find it a bit hard to believe that a nation that has specialized in the weapons and tactics for Carrier Killing, would themsleves adopt the Carrier Battle Group as a part of their overall approach to sea power. Or maybe they doubt their ability to kill Carriers and believe they are still the Queens of the sea.
Putin may have been just blowing smoke, as he has seemed really pissed off lately. Wonder what George W. may have said to him to get him planning 6 Carrier Battle Groups :rolf_3:

Bob B.

Maybe Putin was referring to six carrier battle groups [i]in 1:350 scale[/i]? I'm sure they could afford to get six of those in plastic thanks to Trumpeter. :thumbs_up_1:

It was my understanding that none of the Russian European dockyards could handle much more than 40,000 tons. The large yards now reside in the independent republics.

Out East, the situation may be even worse, with part of the shipbuilding industry upriver and sections taken to Vladivostok for assembly.

Even getting over the costs (as the RN is keenly aware), he has to build an infrastructure on both coasts to support carriers and other surface ships.

USS [i]George H. W. Bush[/i] will cost $5,600,000,000 on delivery.
The Australian F-35 variant will cost $35,000,000 per plane.
An [i]Arleigh Burke[/i] destroyer costs around $800,000,000.
The British Carrier program is L3,000,000,000 for two carriers.

An American carrier costs about $200,000,000 in upkeep per year.
I imagine the destroyer costs $8-10,000,000 yearly to operate.

How much is Putin pledged to spend?

[quote]I think this is Putin putting up smoke and mirrors . And what would Russia require carriers for? They have difficulties in maintaining present capacity.[/quote]

I'd say he's looking to impress the average Ivan in the street. What do you think makes more of a statement that says "Russia is back and a great power again at sea". Something that looks like a floating cigar or a 50 to 60, 000 ton carrier? Never underestimate the power of the sight of a large surface warship to impress.

I think this is Putin putting up smoke and mirrors . And what would Russia require carriers for? They have difficulties in maintaining present capacity.
Dave Wooley

Much of Soviet naval heavy construction infrastructure was in Ukraine, which is now independent. Russia will undoubtedly roll back the ill founded and American sponsored "color revolution" in Ukraine, but I doubt they will succeed so completely as to fire up Ukrainian ship building industry to build up Russian Navy again.

-Chuck

What does a CVBG cost? 8-12 Trillion dollars if non-nuclear? What are the annual costs? 125 billion dollars?

There is only one country in the world with the idiocy to produce such weapons. -- USA.

China can get fair value with 10%-30% the investment, depending on how obvious they want to get.

If they produced 100 KILOs, the USN would need 400 or so P-8s to counter them. Not CVBGs. They are intended to prepare the way for the Marines to take/retake land. Is this the battle?